Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Jaffrelot

"Modi's India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy" (Christophe Jaffrelot, Princeton University Press: 2021) has been out for a few months and received rave reviews. Suggest putting it to good use. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93, you appear to be the GA_nominator. I think the article is far favorable to Modi than in academic scholarship - this probably arises out of using popular biographies etc.

Some issues to ponder upon from the first section (most were probably not added by you), that I read:

(1) He was falsely accused by Mayawati [...] - Why does this matter enough to be included in an encyclopedic profile? Is this something as significant as, say, the Obama birther conspiracies?

(2) As a child, Modi is said to have helped - What necessitated the passive voice? Who is the speaker?

(3) Modi had an early gift for rhetoric in debates, and his teachers and students noted this. - Might as well have sourced the crocodile episode too. Marino is not an appropriate source.

(4) You are taking the pan-India trip, way too seriously. That is all I have to say.

(5) An entire paragraph on Modi's 1971 Satyagraha and arrest?

(6) Who even writes lines like, But there is a big controversy surrounding his educational qualification! The paragraph on his educational qualifications is a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Haven't seen Jaffrelot yet. I generally agree, though it has little to do with Vanamonde who is one of Wikipedia's best and most responsible editors. If he did edit it substantially, he was probably being cautiously neutral. About Modi, yes, the tea-stall stories are overhyped. (See Victor Mallet's Economist article, in my extended newspaper bibliography in this page's archives) which says, he rarely helped his father at the tea stall) But the lead does say, "He is said to have helped his father at the tea stall," which has sufficient irony for the purpose. His marital desertion is generally under-hyped. His disappearance thereafter being chalked to travels in the Himalayas is over-hyped if not entirely apocryphal. The going underground during the Emergency is probably based on scanty evidence. He is obviously a man of some gifts. Where they were honed beyond some innate ability is not entirely clear. It could be the RSS. That part is vague, i.e. how much it has influenced not just his ideology but also his discipline in the aid of his ideology. I am speaking generally now, not about this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

PS I think the issues you mention are important to get right, but Modi has in some sense risen above those clouds of controversy. His further survival or his downfall will be caused not by his education or lack thereof, his failed marriage, even the Gujarat riots, for he is too big now. It is the big issues that need to be focused on more: majoritarianism, democratic backsliding, Kashmir, the pushing back of minorities in a pluralistic society, the reworking of Indian history and urban planing (Delhi and Varanasi), militaristic hyping (e.g. dubious achievements such as the 2019 Balakot airstrike, and so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler You said " It could be the RSS. That part is vague, i.e. how much it has influenced not just his ideology but also his discipline in the aid of his ideology." In my opinion, this man is married to the RSS just like Meerabai thought she was married to Krishna. All the policies he has been enacting have been taught in RSS shakhas for decades. Ask any eight year old boy attending a shakha today, and he will be spewing the same hatred as his grandfather did during his own childhood. Apart from muslims, the other hated figures include members of the Nehru-Gandhi family but particular vitriol is reserved for Jawaharlal Nehru rather than Indira or her descendants. My two cents.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I absolutely agree with you on the more vital areas of focus. That is the reason I suggested using Jaffrelot's work, who provides a succinct summary of all these issues. More later. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: (Off the top of my head) The anti-Muslims bit I can understand. Hindu nationalism predates the RSS. After the first Census of British India (1871), which showed more Muslims than many Hindus had imagined, Dayanand Saraswati and the Arya Samaj promoted the anti-cattle slaughter movement, which in turn caused communal riots in the late 19th century in UP. The Nehru bit is more peculiar. There definitely does seem to be a mood in India today for undermining his achievement. Strawn men such as Bhagat Singh, Subhas Bose, who were generally inconsequential as far as the British desire to hold on to India was concerned not to mention ideologically opposed to the RSS, have been hyped. Among political leaders with some heft, Patel and Ambedkar have been hyped. I can conjecture some reasons. The sources will need to be found; I'm sure they are there. Patel never had the all-India presence as Nehru did. There is almost no chance that in pre-Partition India he could have given a speech in NWFP or even Karachi, to a receptive audience; he did not have the linguistic or cultural reach. He was mostly a party organizer, but he was down-to-earth and goal-oriented, a skill that stood him in good stead in the integration of the princely states. He did openly display Hindu nationalist sentiments, especially after Gandhi's death. Ambedkar is more mysterious. Hindu nationalists have traditionally not allied with the Dalits. As for Ambedkar's constitutional credentials, it is true that he was the chairman of the drafting committee of India's constitution and a very articulate man. But India's constitution is mostly (its procedural 80%) blatantly copied from the Government of India Act, 1935. The inspirational bits especially the preamble have been closely paraphrased from the Irish constitution. As for the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is Nehru whose imprint it carries, going back to the Nehru report of 1928 or 29. Ambedkar, in my view, may have been responsible for the nitty-gritty drafting of the Constitution, but the big picture of the fundamental rights it guarantees is all because of Nehru. (I'm sure the sources are there.) All the bits of the directive principles that show a liberal democratic sentiment, that the Hindu nationalists often scoff at, go back to the Nehru report. Those may be some reasons.

I have taken a look at Jaffrelot. It looks pretty comprehensive. I look forward to reading it. Thank you @TrangaBellam: for noting it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• @TrangaBellam: I am firmly in agreement that the article needs to be updated to reflect scholarly literature; it's been on my to-do list for months, but as can be seen from my contributions, I've had little time for Wikipedia. I bought the Jaffrelot book a few weeks ago for this, and related, purposes. If you have any inclination to work on this, please do so. Yes, I was the GA nominator, and I wrote a considerable amount of the prose; but keep in mind that most of it was written in 2016 and early 2017, when academic literature on his premiership was scarce, and the popular press was far more adulatory; international media coverage is not very favorable to Modi today, but it tended to be, four years ago. Also, just noting that the most egregious sentences you highlight were not ones I wrote. Monitoring every revision of this page simply isn't possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

And also Modi's first term was pretty uneventful. There wasn't much to write. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed run of the mill news item He was falsely accused by Mayawati [...] per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLOATED. Changed reference and framing of As a child, Modi is said to have helped per MOS:WEASEL. But there is a big controversy surrounding his educational qualification - this is an encyclopaedic tone. Not sure how to frame this, or if this is WP:NOTEWORTHY enough. - hako9 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Why does including an accusation by Mayawati over his caste deserve any mention in the article? This is routine run of the mill political bickering. Your edit summary is conspicuously bereft of good explanation. And reinstating the peacock tag for big controversy. This is textbook MOS:WTW. Either remove the whole damn thing, or phrase it better. - hako9 (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. I suppose it was undo+edit, gone wrong? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what it was! Thanks for fixing, Hako9. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Modi's first term was not exactly uneventful but I have to concede to Vanamonde93 about international media coverage. To some luck (and regret), that is not a problem anymore — NYT, Guardian, NRC etc. feature a ton of critical coverage; here's one from hours back. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, another decent volume with multiple relevant essays: Widmalm, Sten, ed. (2022). Routledge Handbook of Autocratization in South Asia. London: Taylor & Francis. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems useful, thank you. I've been kept away from this page by work, health issues, and an FAR that I've been doing work on; I'll do my best to get to it at some point. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Issues in the Environmental Policy section

Sorry if I'm understanding this wrong, but the 2013-14 budget allocation for the MoEF was Rs.2630 Cr. which went to Rs.2256 Cr. during the 14-15 budget, which would be a decrease of 14%, not 50%. It has also since shot up to Rs.3100 Cr. which is a ~18% increase from 2013-14. I don't understand why the "Environmental Policy" section chooses to list on the very first paragraph an 8 year old statistic which doesn't reflect India's current policy at all, while excluding the very real strides taken to tackle climate change like the founding the International Solar Alliance (which has no mention in the section, only as the label for a picture), meeting it's Paris Agreement target to increase its installed electricity capacity from clean sources like solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear to 40%-- which it did 9 years ahead of schedule. It doesn't mention the National Hydrogen Mission, or the fact that solar power generation has risen 1200% from 4.6Twh in 2014-15 to 60.4 Twh in 2020-21. The bias in this section of the article is evident and I would go as far as to say it doesn't represent the actual environmental policy of his government at all. The Environmental policy section is in dire need of an update and the way it is currently written is doing a disservice to the actions taken by India during his administration to meet it's climate goals. Anirudhgiri (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Any updates on this? Are the mods here willing to update the section to better reflect his current day environmental policies and the climate action taken under his tenure? It's been a month since I posted this and there has been no discussion on the matter. Anirudhgiri (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Against Deleting several days of good peer-reviewed research

Hi, unfortunately I found something which is very sad. I mean I suddenly noticed that some editors have removed some well researched material discriminately, which has been done for so long. For ex.-Just look these- [1], [2]

And my second objection is that What’s the problem with many Indian authors which they have removed like [3](Strange claim that Bhattacharjee does not seem reliable according to their own suitability and bias).

And the Third and most Critical objection-

Look at the statements of the Article that says:-

“Modi had only infrequently spoken of his family background during his 13 years as chief minister of Gujarat. In the run up to the 2014 national elections, he began to regularly draw attention to his low-ranking social origins and to having to work as a child in his father's tea shop on the Vadnagar railway station platform”

Are you saying something like 'he's got attention’? What kind of statement is this? I know editing is what everyone can do, but please be specific and respectful too. Please correct the article, which is turning out to be very hostile for the individual. Even if you don't respect the PM, you should be at least neutral enough that it doesn't leave the audience feeling a smell of hate. I hope other editors do take note here.223.190.167.197 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

The talk section about the problems in the environmental policy section has been silent for a whole month with nobody raising any objections. I'm going to assume Qui tacet consentire videtur (WP:SILENT) and ask that the following edits be done:

1) Correct the claim that the budget allocation for the environment went down by 50% to 14%, or remove that part entirely because it's outdated.

2) Mention that the budget allocation for MoEF has gone up ~18% since his election in 2014

3) Mention the founding of the International Solar Alliance

4) Mention the meeting of India's Paris Climate agreement vows 9 years before schedule (sources for the above points are listed in the "Issues in the Environmental Policy section" section in the talk page)

5) Mention the creation of the national hydrogen mission to help the country produce and adapt green hydrogen

6) Mention that solar power generation has risen 1200% from 4.6Twh in 2014-15 to 60.4 Twh in 2020-21

7) Mention that the world's largest and second largest photovoltaic power stations were built in India under his premiership

The fact that all these points have been omitted in the article while inaccurate and outdated figures stay in the Wikipedia article of a living elected head of government is a shame and must be corrected to better reflect his actual environmental policy. If people want to start a discussion about this instead of making the changes, I am going to have to at least have to ask you to mark the neutrality of the section as disputed in the meanwhile Anirudhgiri (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Haven't checked all, but (4) is a complete exaggeration of what the source says. (1) is neither wrong nor outdated. It's the central funding that was cut. You can see it in same table you linked to - "Plan outlay" at the bottom is split into Central and State contributions. The specific numbers are 2430cr in 2013-14 (UPA), 1850cr in Revised 2013-14 (NDA) and 1171cr in 2014-15. This source specifically talks about the halving.

Since there appear to be issues, I'm setting this to answered for now. For others, please provide actual text for the proposed changes. Hemantha (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

This article is an attack piece. It says, evidence of a majoritarian and exclusionary social agenda but those are just allegations. The BJP has a minority cell which is doing good work for minorities. The other parties however indulge only in minority appeasement at the cost of Hindus. The lead says, A Supreme Court of India-appointed Special Investigation Team found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against Modi personally but in the, "Personal life" subsection of the, "Personal life and image" section, it says, Nonetheless, his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots continues to attract criticism and controversy with no mention of being exonerated by the Special Investigation Team. The allegations need to be removed or at least, the exoneration by the Special Investigation Team should be mentioned everywhere an allegation is made. What will foreigners think? Imran Khan, the Pakistani PM seems to not have such a negative article although he openly supports terrorists, including the Taliban!-2405:204:5097:B014:F83A:2702:C785:FDDE (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC) 2405:204:5097:B014:F83A:2702:C785:FDDE (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead says, A Supreme Court of India-appointed Special Investigation Team found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against Modi personally but in the, "Personal life" subsection of the, "Personal life and image" section, it says, Nonetheless, his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots continues to attract criticism and controversy with no mention of being exonerated by the Special Investigation Team. The allegation need to be removed or at least, the exoneration by the Special Investigation Team should be mentioned everywhere an allegation is made.-2405:204:5097:B014:11BB:E03:607E:A4D1 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The special investigation team report is already mentioned in para 3 of the lead. Repeating it everywhere would be unnecessary duplication. Note also that wikipedia gives more weight to academic sources and less weight to court rulings or reports. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark, at least, can you add that he was exonerated by the Special Investigation Team after the sentence Nonetheless, his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots continues to attract criticism and controversy which is in the, "Personal life" subsection of the, "Personal life and image" section?-2405:204:5097:B014:C4CC:F50C:AB9:FFDA (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam or Kautilya3, it is left to one of you to do so now as RegentsPark is not doing it.-27.7.6.227 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies upon academic scholars for the better or worse. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, IP, wikipedia moves at wikispeed. I don't think your proposed addition is necessary, nor does not it fit in the text. The actual sentence says nothing about what he was responsible for or not responsible for in the riots, it merely says that there is controversy about his role. Which, apparently, is well sourced. Adding "he was exonerated", or rather "no evidence was found" seems unnecessary because we aren't saying he was guilty of anything. Even if we had said "Modi was responsible for ....", the government report doesn't carry much weight on Wikipedia and it would be undue to keep harping on it. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the reliable sources have not "exhonerated" Modi. The Special Investigation Team is undue. People should be glad that we are even mentioning it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources dont have any authority, capacity & capability to 'exhnorate' or 'not exhonater' Modi. It is the task of investigating agencies like SITLodoVena (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove Operation ganga

Operation ganga is ongoing. Remove it. SameepS (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@SameepS There is a whole article on 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, which is ongoing. Would you like to delete the whole article? Souryadeep630 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Add when it finished.SameepS (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing by Souryadeep630

This person is whitewashing this article.SameepS (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha The Harriss 2015 as you mentioned in edit Special:Diff/1075008329 corresponds to page 712, is that correct? If you were able to verify, could you add the citation removed by @Souryadeep630 along with the page? Seems like a contentious claim, so more refs would do only good, imo. — DaxServer (t · c) 13:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer, On Harriss 2015, no, it isn't page 712. Those pages are intro to a collection of essays. One of those essays, in later pages, is by Ronojoy Sen in which he discusses campaign financing by corporate donors. But the ref I added in my edit is much better than that both in ease of access and verifiability; and I feel that readers wouldn't be better served by adding ref to Sen's essay (also because Sen mentions Rajdeep Sardesai; which might make the next editor checking the ref, remove it as biased) . Hemantha (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I've also reverted Special:Diff/1075273643 - the Efn provides sources for Modi's administration being considered complicit. Looking at 2002 Gujarat riots, the statement attributes to scholars studying the riots. Maybe it should be done here as well? Opinions?

Also reverted Special:Diff/1075287008/1075366185 by @Souryadeep630: The body seems to sufficiently source it. Do you see any gaps? — DaxServer (t · c) 13:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello @SameepS and @DaxServer I have not done any censoring/whitewashing of any information. I have been editing on Wikipedia from the past 2 years and have had constructive experiences of editing and writing an article on wikipedia. I bring in legitimate references and citations for all the information that I add. At the same time, unsourced information, especially when it is commendments or allegations must have a strong source as per the policies of Wikipedia. The information which I added at my budding days as an editor were also reasonably deleted, due to lack of references and sources. @DaxServer I trust you and I request you to keenly see my past editings in this page and amend this false allegation of whitewashing Thank You, Cheers Souryadeep630 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Souryadeep630 I don't think you did any whitewashing. All I see is you challenging some content, some of which is clarified and other sources being added. I forgot to mention that the second diff Special:Diff/1075273643 I reverted was by @Jhy.rjwk, which actually falls under whitewashing. I thought I mentioned it. Sorry about that! I've also left a note on @SameepS's talk page asking to post some diffs when they accuse someone. Thanks :) — DaxServer (t · c) 17:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

All his editing blindly support BJP in many articles. He is adding unnecessary content in many articles witout neutrally. You know what. BJP has big IT cell to spreading hate online. Every one should be careful.SameepS (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SameepS Firstly I respectfully ask you to be sensible, Writing true facts, both positive side and negative side of any article does not account to biasing. Do understand this first. Daxserver has also had a look at my inputs. I have written almost all of the controversies section in article Yogi Adityanath. Go have a look if you are still confused about the word favourism, biasing and neutrality. Have a nice day Souryadeep630 (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You written BJP propaganda in Yogi adityanath. Some people deleted it. SameepS (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

By the above message I come to know you do not know how to view a specified editings of a user. I wish May you get the knowledge of it, God bless you Souryadeep630 (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• @DaxServer: You seem to have restored the problem edit here despite the well-explained removal which seemed to have been removing the remaining WP:GEVAL attempted on this problematic edit. It is also WP:UNDUE for the lead because courts make hundreds of comments, only their verdict is important for highlighting. This edit was never discussed on the talk page either. I think you should remove this sentence. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk(); 18:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ya, the remark shall be removed from the lead. Thanks for the observation! — DaxServer (t · c) 19:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the 3rd para needs a bit of re-work — DaxServer (t · c) 12:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

The following section shall be added in this subheading.

PM Modi approval rating is highest among 13 world leaders in a survey conducted by US-based global leader approval tracker Morning Consult. PM Modi garnered an approval rating of 71 per cent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kichupila (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That site seems to be masquerading as Times of India. Hemantha (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Kichupila one source says 71 rating, would you like to say anything about this, the last line will not match, is there any other source.. – B203GTB  • (talk)  • 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Kichupila don't edit comments after they've been replied to, see WP:TALK#REVISE. Hemantha (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

added more sources, corrected approval rating to 71% Kichupila (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

• Strike off sock — DaxServer (t · m · c) 06:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Add - "In 2019, PM Modi donated Rs. 21 lakh from his personal savings to the corpus fund for the welfare of sanitation workers ok Kumbh Mela" in the Personal Donations Section. Ankit18gupta (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pm-modis-donations-from-his-savings-and-proceeds-of-auctions-exceed-rs-103-crore/articleshow/77907816.cms#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20PM%20Modi%20donated%20Rs.%2021%20lakh%20from%20his%20personal%20savings%20to%20the%20corpus%20fund%20for%20the%20welfare%20of%20sanitation%20workers%20of%20Kumbh%20Mela. Ankit18gupta (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This Edit Request was made under Edit Request Wizard Project for GSoC 2022 ( https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T300454 ) Ankit18gupta (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That ToI article, without a by-line and very similar to the actual PMO tweets, isn't reliable or independent. Most of the other sources I was able to find were all reporting on the same set of tweets from the PMO, thus making the claim WP:SPS and unsuitable for inclusion. If you can find reliable, third-party verification for the PMO claims, please reopen. Hemantha (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the section was already sourced to similar questionable articles, I've added this as well after rewording the whole thing to clarify where the claims have come from. Hemantha (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Non-notable parents

Per guidelines at Template:Infobox person, we are suppose to write names of parents, children and relatives in the infobox if they are independently notable. Damodardas Mulchand Modi and Hiraben Modi are not independently notable. I believe we should remove these entries. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've boldly removed it — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

The column of Vice President of India only comes when it is the column of the president of India not when it is of the Prime minister. Fatah47 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Modi and climate change

India under Modi has achieved several milestones in climate action. He and his government have taken up many initiatives both domestic and international. It should be added in the lead. Appu (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition to lead because it is factually wrong and full of PR buzzwords. The tripling of EV subsidies, when seen in the correct context, shows a failure to reach adoption numbers previously claimed.
I've also tagged the section you've added. The addition is entirely based on on churned-out news reports of govt claims. The numbers from govt PR are high-level targets which have been questioned already and the Indian govt has a long history of exaggerating. A target to triple hydropower to 50GW, announced by Vajapayee in 2003, had only resulted in 12GW additions by 2012. This is relevant because, as the linked article notes, hydel is again a big part of the 450GW target. Modi had also targeted 100GW solar capacity by 2022, of which only around 40GW has been realized.
On COP26 targets, there was a lot of ambiguity and doubts have been raised regarding non-existent storage capacity, contradictory govt statements about coal/gas and so on. There is really no reason to see those numbers as anything other than "shoot for the stars if you wish to reach moon".
The section also has neutrality problems. You use a reference titled "India pledges net-zero emissions by 2070 — but also wants to expand coal mining" to support Indian environmentalists and economists applauded the decision, describing it as a bold climate action? Hemantha (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

expansion to 2002 Gujrat riots

"In June 2022, the Supreme court of India dismissed a petition by Zakia Jafri wherein she challenged the clean chit given to the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots by an independent Special Investigation Team." Nalasopara (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done here Kpddg ^(talk) 10:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2022

Please update Award & recognition section with Lata Deenanath Mangeshkar Award which PM Narendra Modi received on 24th April 2022 in Mumbai. Saankav (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pm-modi-receives-first-lata-award-maharashtra-cm-gives-event-a-miss/articleshow/91059534.cms Saankav (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Nalasopara (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

An article does not yet exist for this particlar award... Kpddg ^(talk) 11:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Mention of the award was added to Deenanath Mangeshkar in 2016, so it's probably something? Whether or not the award is noteworthy idk. Probably not worth listing. I'll leave it up to another editor. SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Image appears squashed

Anyone know what's going on here? The image is too narrow, relative to its height; and the problem isn't visible when I go to the image page itself. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Gujarat Riots

The S.I.T as well as the supreme court have ruled that Modi was not responsible for the riots, and found no 'material evidence' against him and the other officials in the State. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). So how is it appropriate to say: 'His administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots' in the lead, when the apex court has given a clean chit? Kpddg ^(talk) 10:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As various Indians courts and Indian Supreme court though a marathon legal trial and hearing of 20 years given a clean chit to Narendra Modi. Its high time to remove the citation that makes him complicit in the riots. Nalasopara (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that he was blamed by many people can remain in the respective section, but it cannot be stated in the lead that he or his administration is considered complicit. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

A finding that "Modi was not responsible for the riots", "no material evidence found" etc. in no way refutes "His administration has been considered complicit". Relatedly, I'm amused that you think this Supreme Court is some final arbiter of truth or is even a reliable source for anything related to Modi or the right.

But what moral high ground is left to the judges when considered opinion begins to offend their dignity far more than mockery ever could? In the aftermath of the Goswami verdict, the columnist Pratap Bhanu Mehta wrote that the Supreme Court was showing signs of “judicial barbarism.” Mehta is typically the voice of the most middle-of-the-road liberal opinions, but here he felt strongly enough to even note “creeping hues of a Weimar judiciary.” That judiciary helped the rise of Nazi Germany by granting much mercy to the right and no quarter to the left, heedless of the principle of equality before the law. Before Khehar, drawing such a parallel would have passed for blasphemy. After Gogoi, it was just another day.

— Dev, Atul (1 December 2020). "Now as Farce". Caravan.

Hemantha (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the supreme court is not a final decider of truth. But its decisions are far more optimal than what some sources say. Kpddg ^(talk) 13:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

And the current sources for this statement are old. After this ruling, their stances may change as well, so we could wait and watch. Kpddg ^(talk) 04:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

That may well be true, and keeping an eye on that needle is only appropriate in a case such as this. That said, at the present time, the statement seems entirely WP:DUE to me based on the collective weight of sources, and our interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source with a contradictory opinion (and indeed, a primary source that is deeply embedded in the same political fabric that undergirds the debate, however high a court it may be) cannot supplant that WP:WEIGHT, based on the sourcing we are working with at this time. Still, there are arguably some improvements that could be made here. It might be felt inappropriate for the lead, but I personally would not mind some attribution here: the statement that Modi is felt to have contributed to the riots or there severity or duration, while widespread in many independent sources, is far from universal. That much change I for one could support, as an editorial matter--in principle at least: I'd have to see the exact wording before fully endorsing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, we're not saying he was personally complicit; most scholars do not go that far. We're saying his administration was complicit, which, as TrangaBellam notes, has a lot of support. In fact I'm unaware of academic sources besides Madhu Kishwar (and given her recent reputation, I'm not sure she's even usable here) that explicitly absolve the government of responsibility. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's narrative needs to be based on reliable sources; in this case, where scholarly sources are in abundance, a court ruling carries little weight. Until such a time as scholarly sources change how they write about the Gujarat riots, the current text is appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Came here to write the same thing. Scholars are unanimous that his administration was complicit. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, hardly "unanimous", but yes, I agree that the WP:WEIGHT here clearly marks this comment as due for inclusion, including in the lead. That said, per my comments immediately above, some attribution probably would not hurt. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Modi's first name

Contrary to what the first efn of the article says, there is no official word on whether his legal first name is Narendrabhai. He has taken oath under the name "Narendra Damodardas Modi" only. Appu (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources and Quotes

To add. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Reorganising "Hindutva" section

This subsection has always bothered me, as it's not a category of policy; however, there's obviously a lot of coverage about how Hindutva has played a role in Modi's premiership. I am now thinking it should be folded into a larger section (not subsection) about ideology, perception, and legacy, which could also include the image and awards material. The policy description could be moved elsewhere; the awards material needs trimming in any case (why does the reader care that his image was displayed on a building?); the personal life material has a lot of redundancies with the early life section. Thoughts would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Never mind; this doesn't actually work. The coverage of his ideology essentially covers his premiership. Self-reverting. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal of adding a new section on 'false statements'

Modi has given many false statements in parliament and in many public speeches. Almost every politician speaks lies, but I think we can write some of the lies by him(which contradicts even his own government data) in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Modi#Public_perception_and_image, inspired from Donald Trump wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC))

@Libreravi: There's considerable coverage in reliable sources of Trump's falsehoods as a general phenomenon. Do you have comparable coverage for Modi? Otherwise, any such subsection is going to end up being a list of fact-checked statements, which is likely to be undue. Individual statements may be worth including in the appropriate sub-section. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following may be added in this section

In a survey conducted by Morning Consult Survey in August 2022. Narendra Modi topped the global rating amongst world leaders with an approval rating of 75 per cent.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pm-narendra-modi-tops-list-of-most-popular-world-leaders-with-75-rating-survey/articleshow/93797529.cms

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maduadih (talk • contribs)

 Not done per WP:RS/PS; "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government." — Manticore 20:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Manticore now can you do it Mr mantis ben-k-lore? Maduadih (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/pm-modi-tops-list-of-most-popular-world-leaders-with-75-rating-survey-122082600609_1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maduadih (talk • contribs)

Still not done, that is a syndicated story meaning it is just a copy of the original unreliable article. — Manticore 06:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Manticore, The Times Of India is just reporting the survey carried out by the Morning Consult. Other independent sources like HT have also reported this. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg do the change pl Maduadih (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Am waiting for Manticore to respond, as it is better to discuss first Kpddg ^(talk) 14:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

whether this edit request has been executed? If not, why this has been answered = yes without executing the same? Maduadih (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

References

@Maduadih: I am closing this edit request yet again, as I have already responded to it twice. An edit request is precisely that, we are not obliged to make the changes you have demanded. I am not convinced that the edit request has merit, nor that it is supported by a reliable source. That nobody has already made the edit you have requested suggests my view is shared by others who regularly edit this article. Your behaviour on this talk page has been disrespectful and belligerent. You will not build consensus for your suggested changes by behaving in this way. — Manticore 02:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You said "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable". Later I have given Morning consult as a source. Is morning consult is also unreliable?Maduadih (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bishonen Maduadih (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Stop this, please. Edit-requests are for non-contentious information. If anyone disagrees with your proposed change, you need to first establish consensus for it, by opening a discussion here and persuading other editors that your change is a good one. Please open such a discussion now. Reopening this is disruptive. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• While I was typing a reply to Maduadih, Vanamonde properly closed the request, so I will post it here:

• @Maduadih: "Yes" means the request has been answered, not that it has been answered in the positive. See the yellow banner: "Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category." The request has been answered (repeatedly) in the negative. Many people watch this page, and have seen your request; there is no need to ping particular users that you believe more likely to accept it, and doing so is not good talkpage practice. Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 01 Spetember 2022

The following may be added in this section

Indian economy grew by 13.5% during the first quarter of the financial year 2022-23. It was revealed in the estimates of Gross Domestic Product for the April – June quarter of the FY 2022-23 published by the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maduadih (talk • contribs) 05:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The GDP growth of a given quarter is almost always undue; Modi has now been Prime Minister for ~8 years; do you wish to add GDP statistics for 32 quarters? Vanamonde (Talk) 07:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes , why not we can give a graph or a pie-chart for the same. Maduadih (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC))

@Maduadih: This is not Mr Modi's fanpage. We don't do critical analyses of the economy and various statistics and present beautiful data visualizations, to reach a conclusion that suits your idea of noteworthy content. It seems like an exercise in futility, but I ask you to read WP:SYNTH and other core content policies before arguing we include something. — hako9 (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Please remove this sentence from the lead: "Described as engineering a political realignment towards right-wing politics, Modi remains a figure of controversy domestically and internationally over his Hindu nationalist beliefs and his handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots, cited as evidence of an exclusionary social agenda.". It is in violation of the WP:BLPCRIME rule.

The rule says,

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

2401:4900:277F:B711:9D39:2EA6:D24:CE (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The text you're asking to be removed does not mention a crime. It merely says he is "controversial", and that's not the same as "criminal". --RegentsPark (comment) 23:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Covid

As I write this, there are approximately 6000 scholarly hits that mention both Modi and the Covid pandemic, compared to 13,000 that mention Modi at all, since 2020. That's approximately half, and is a far larger fraction than any other policy mentioned in the lead that I have searched thus far. Not mentioning it is simply not an option. The wording I'm happy to discuss. The content at Covid-19 pandemic in India is appallingly out of date in any case, and does not discuss recent analysis. The WHO report is among the best recent sources; other good scholarly work dates from the middle of last year. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Btw, are you planning to give the content a much-needed overhaul? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am...or at least the policy pieces of it. We have good sources talking about more than just the first year, now. Anything pre-2014 is pretty decent, I would say, and I have no patience for the awards/personality/image sections. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary[4] said that response to Covid-19 has been covered in biographies of most pages of the world leaders, but I don't see if that was discussed on Vladimir Putin where it was removed over the same reason as mine here.

While it is a very common knowledge that Modi was the prime minister of India during covid-19 crisis, I don't think that comes of as a surprise. In any case, we shouldn't be mentioning WHO statistics on the lead. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we be mentioning WHO statistics in the lead? Are you aware of a more authoritative source? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is about Modi having responded to Covid-19. It makes no sense to mention WP:EXCEPTIONAL figure based on modeling approach by WHO which is not backed with any empirical evidence and it is not even a mainstream figure. All of the reliable sources still consider US to have topped Covid-19 deaths with 1 million deaths. Modi! = India. This would not mean that we should be mentioning Indian government's own estimate on the lead because it would make it seem as if Modi is responsible for them. There are enough problems with mentioning this or any other figure on lead. >>> Extorc.talk 19:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"All of the reliable sources still consider US to have topped Covid-19 deaths with 1 million deaths" This is demonstrably false, and suggests you have not read most of the reliable sources published in the last year. The WHO is a reliable source, as is the Science article estimating 3 million deaths by June 2021.

Again, I'm open to reformulating this, but anyone wishing to do so needs to bring some high-quality sources here and discuss how to synthesize them. Calling into question the reliability of high-quality sources is disruptive. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It is correct that "reliable sources still consider US to have topped Covid-19 deaths with 1 million deaths". WHO's tally is based on computer modelling, not body count. In which world you think it is sensible to provide them more weight over the official figures that have actually done the body count? At Talk:India/Archive_55#Update_population_data, we hadn't accepted estimates based on statistical modelling. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Extorc. Mentioning a fact which differs substantially in different places, that too in the lead, is not appropriate. The current wording also needs to be improved. Other articles on premiers also just mention that they led/oversaw the response. There is nothing significant here in this matter, unlike in Trump's article. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly and I also agree with Extorc's another point that the estimate "make it seem as if Modi is responsible for them", despite Maharashtra and Kerala had more deaths than any other Indian state and there was no BJP government at the time WHO report was even released. Lead should be rid of any coronavirus estimate. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In which world you think it is sensible to provide them more weight over the official figures that have actually done the body count? - Seriously? A body-count which, numerous reliable sources, document to be extensively fudged by design (or not). To claim that such governmental statistics be treated at par with WHO's estimates is a ridiculous proposition. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

So far, Wikipedia has provided more weight to official figures instead of deaths which involved both direct and indirect deaths estimates by WHO. You would like to see Wikidata, infoboxes (for every single article) and reliable sources in general that happen to cite official figure provided by the country.

Even if I was all wrong (which I am not), still, the lead should be rid of coronavirus estimate because Modi is not the one who caused it and every state in India implemented pandemic guidelines on their own. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata is a sister project and we do not care about their content. Is it your claim that reliable sources do not prefer citing WHO estimates and instead go by India's official statistics? At this rate, you will end up at AE.

Numerous scholars from social sciences to medicine appears to disagree with your second paragraph. I can cite about another few dozen. It might be that they are misguided but we vouch for verifiability, not truth. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You are making no sense here because official covid-19 death figure by governments and excess deaths figure by WHO are not even same thing. If you want to talk about prevalence of official statistics, then note that WHO itself presents country's own official figures when it is talking about severity of Covid-19 as evident in recent reliable sources.[5][6] Where does this source and this source appear to be blaming Indian covid deaths on Modi? From the snippet view, this one said "If that outcome were to happen, Modi's Government would be responsible for presiding over a self-inflicted national catastrophe", but that is surely not enough for putting the blame on Modi (or only Modi) over what "would" happen. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Abecedare explained to you elsewhere that your assessment of the WHO was entirely incorrect; and yet I see you repeating it here. Which suggests you're engaged in IDHT behavior either here or there. Please provide an alternative formulation that incorporates reliable secondary sources (this means not government statements, not content directly from the health ministry website, and not content that does nothing more than report statements from the first two sources), or expect to be ignored. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

My assessment was actually correct that excess deaths and covid-19 deaths are different things, but that is not the point here anymore.

The discussion for most times in this section has been that "during which the World Health Organization estimated that 4.7 million Indians died" is WP:UNDUE for lead. This is because Modi is not responsible (or solely responsible) for those estimates. Every state and city in India had its own covid-related norms.

You have used two sources,[7][8] but both of them do not even mention Modi. That's why estimate (it can be any estimate) should not be added on lead. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Given your insistence on removing the information elsewhere, I find that argument specious; but as it happens I've independently come to the conclusion that the estimate by itself is insufficient, and does not read well until contextualized. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Early political carrier

Narendra Modi, then Chief Minister of Gujarat and later Prime Minister of India, was accused of condoning 2002 gujrat riots and the violence, as were police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to them.[19]

In 2012, Modi was cleared of complicity in the violence by Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court of India. The SIT also rejected claims that the state government had not done enough to prevent the riots.[20] The Muslim community was reported to have reacted with anger and disbelief.[21] In July 2013, allegations were made that the SIT had suppressed evidence.[22] That December, an Indian court upheld the earlier SIT report and rejected a petition seeking Modi's prosecution.[23] In April 2014, the Supreme Court expressed satisfaction over the SIT's investigations in nine cases related to the violence, and rejected a plea contesting the SIT report as "baseless".[24]

Though officially classified as a communalist riot, the events of 2002 have been described as a pogrom by many scholars,[25][26] with some commentators alleging that the attacks had been planned, with the attack on the train was a "staged trigger" for what was actually premeditated violence.[27][28] Other observers have stated that these events had met the "legal definition of genocide,"[29] or referred to them as state terrorism or ethnic cleansing.[3][1][2] Instances of mass violence include the Naroda Patiya massacre that took place directly adjacent to a police training camp;[30] the Gulbarg Society massacre where Ehsan Jafri, a former parliamentarian, was among those killed; and several incidents in Vadodara city.[31] Scholars studying the 2002 riots state that they were premeditated and constituted a form of ethnic cleansing, and that the state government and law enforcement were complicit in the violence that occurred.[27][3][30][32][33][34][35][3 Mshareefmkm (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Unsure, what do you want to say exactly. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 06:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2022

Need to add various hyperlinks and a part of political career with various missions conducted by him is missing.Manan Sethia (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Manan Sethia (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Link to Godhra Train Terrorist Attack Required

The reference to Gujarat Riots in the aftermath of an Islamic Terrorist Attack on a train in Godhra is required,to get complete context of the Gujarat Riots. The Wiki seems to refer to Gujarat Riots in Isolation without providing context. 171.76.86.19 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Court of India decision on demonitization, Jan 2, 2023

In sec 5.3 of the main Modi article, on Economic policy, in the discussion of the demonitization of Indian currency you should add something like the following "On Jan 2, 2023, Reuters reported that the Supreme Court of India upheld the demonitization of high value bills, against a challenge to the constitutionality of the act, by a 4 to 1 vote of a 5-member bench." Unfortunately, I have not seen the original decision of the Supreme Court, so I can't say anything more. The link to the Reuters: story https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-supreme-court-upholds-legality-2016-note-ban-decision-2023-01-02/ Gallk (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to me. Perhaps it can go in an article on the demonetization? --RegentsPark (comment) 19:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is an article on the demonitization, it surely should go there.

But it is also relevant here, because it tells you what happened legally to a policy that was both legally and politically intensely controversial. Gallk (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. There isn't sufficient context in this article to include a court judgement (we'll have to add material on whatever prompted the case and that's beyond the scope of an article on Modi). --RegentsPark (comment) 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree, it doesn't belong here. Commentary on the effects of demonetization have focused on its impacts, intended and otherwise; not its legality, which is at issue here. It belongs in the article about demonetization. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Salary

Salary

As the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi is entitled to a salary and benefits as per the rules and regulations set forth by the government of India. According to the information available, the Prime Minister of India receives a salary of Rs. 2.5 Lakh per month. This salary is inclusive of all the perks Ahir Shubham (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

Please give me access to edit. halfbloodprince (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

Add, the Modi government runs PM-JAY scheme, which is the world’s largest health insurance/ assurance scheme fully financed by the government. It provides a cover of Rs. 5 lakhs per family per year for secondary and tertiary care hospitalization across public and private empanelled hospitals in India. 86.42.12.53 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources and get consensus for this content addition. (See also Premiership of Narendra Modi. May be more relevant there.) --RegentsPark (comment) 22:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Redundant wording

The article has tons of redundant wordings. Some copyediting would be appreciated. I will post at WP:GOCE for help — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Modi's Degree

I think wikipedia should clarify Modi's degree MA subject was 'Entire Political Science', not just political science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagmanst (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, that Ashish Khetan of Aam Aadmi Party claimed that the purported degree is from someone else.

We checked the records of Delhi University from 1975 to 1980 at our level and have figured out that there is no person with the name Narendra Damodardas Modi who was awarded any degree," AAP leader Ashish Khetan claimed. "There was a person who did his graduation from 1975 to 1978 but that was Narendra Kumar Mahavir Prasad Modi. He is a resident of Alwar in Rajasthan with October 19, 1958 as his date of birth," he alleged

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/AAP-claims-some-other-Narendra-was-awarded-BA-degree-by-DU-not-PM-Modi/articleshow/52153406.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wecacuee (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Placement of 2002 riots fault

The first half of second para wherein the complacency is written seems injected into the natural flow as at that point we still haven't discussed the role of the Gujarat Govt and the actions it took. Jumping into scholarly views on the Govt seems premature as we haven't yet established what it did. Wouldn't it be better to move that to the end after the timeline completes at 2022 SC ruling? cc @Vanamonde93 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should move it after discussion of the court's discussion of Modi's role; that third paragraph is full of legal minutiae that are relevant to this article, as it's Modi's bio, but not very relevant to understanding the riots themselves. I'm open to reshuffling the second paragraph, though, to address the issue of critique coming before description; I've taken a stab at it. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing information about infrastructure projects

In the section on his premiership, his large-scale projects into infrastructure is missing. 2A02:3030:81D:F93D:1:0:91A6:6C0A (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Details about Mr. Modi's activities as a Prime Minister are in the article Premiership of Narendra Modi. Check there to see if the information is included. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: India in Global Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 14 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ia987 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Adirrao (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

remove misinformation/mistranslation about remarks on climate change

under the heading climate change, a line has been added "Speaking with Assamese students in 2014, Modi downplayed climate change, saying "Climate has not changed. We have changed. Our habits have changed. Our habits have got spoiled. Due to that, we have destroyed our entire environment." The reference cited for the same is 370. It is an incorrect interpretation from partial translation. I would attach the link to the complete video with timestamp but wikipedia has blocked youtube links, and the video was uploaded to youtube by media channel. He is saying that its not the environment that changed, but human habits. The change in our habits is directly damaging the environment. If we strike a balance with nature, its ready to restore itself.

The mistranslation makes it appear as misinformation on climate change instead of a request to people to change their habits to those that are better for nature. Sk.griffinix (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

https:// youtu. be /Lj-ekgmKLPE?t=2297

hopefully it works without spaces Sk.griffinix (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

yes its misleading Vanamonde heads up BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Additional details into BA certificate authenticity

@ChaitanyaJo: The "minor error" I was referring to was the quote from the source, not of your edit [9]. I trimmed down all the content [10] as those intricate details of who and what [and your editorialisation] are not relevant here. The Registrar's declaration can be taken as that of the university's, or am I missing something here? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Understood. ChaitanyaJo (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Wrestlers Protest

Recommendation: Add the 2023 Wrestlers Protests to the "controversies" list in the sidebar. 18apr (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@18apr Please provide reliable sources which support this addition to be due — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Copying some over below. Please check.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-01/why-india-wrestlers-want-to-throw-away-medals-in-metoo-protest?srnd=premium#xj4y7vzkg

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/07/india-female-wrestlers-threaten-to-hand-back-olympic-medals-in-harassment-row

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/29/india/india-wrestlers-protest-detained-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65478707

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/28/world-is-watching-indian-police-drag-away-protesting-wrestlers

https://thewire.in/rights/govt-trying-to-muzzle-our-voices-protesters-who-were-detained-for-supporting-wrestlers-speak

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/world/asia/india-wrestler-protest.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/05/world/asia/india-wrestlers-harassment-protest.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/05/30/india-female-wrestlers-sexual-harassment/9658eb0e-ff05-11ed-9eb0-6c94dcb16fcf_story.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-01/why-india-wrestlers-want-to-throw-away-medals-in-metoo-protest?srnd=premium#xj4y7vzkg 18apr (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

None of them establish why the protests are due and encyclopaedic to warrant a mention in this article. Also, see WP:NOTNEWS — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll look into that. Thanks. 18apr (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

15th Prime Minsiter

Narendra Modi is the 15th Prime Minister of India, not 14th. Dr. Manmohan Singh was the 14th PM. 125.62.118.183 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - we use the numbering as per List of prime ministers of India - Arjayay (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed text

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section has been removed from the article by me; see article's history for full attribution. I'm removing the text because it's either off-topic, trivial or extended content; I'm leaving it here for the benefit of future editors and in case its removal breaks any named references.

Early life and education

Many years later, he would co-author a biography of Inamdar, published in 2001.

Replying to an RTI query, the SOL said it did not have any data of students who received a BA degree in 1978. Jayantibhai Patel, a former political science professor of Gujarat University, claimed that the subjects listed in Modi's MA degree were not offered by the university when Modi was studying there. In 2016, the Delhi University deemed the BA degree to be authentic.

References

Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I wonder if this is worth moving to a footnote. On the one hand, it's really getting into the weeds; in an already-long article, I'd tend to agree that it's undue weight. On the other, the controversy generated enough press that it's not unlikely that the omission will generate comment, and that some folks coming here looking specifically for this information may be perplexed. A footnote would handle all the issues, as I see it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93:, I'm not sure whether this is covered further on in the article. I removed this text because the section concerned covers Modi's youth, education and early adulthood, so it seems out of place. I agree the matter should be covered. It could certainly go into a Controversies section; failing that, a footnote would be better than leaving it out. It's early days though; I think this c/e will be a long one! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry, and if we'd prefer to slot it in elsewhere I would be okay with that; but I will note my vehement opposition to a controversy section, for a variety of reasons that are best summed up by saying such a section is almost always a violation of NPOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, I couldn't find a more suitable place for the above so I've re-added the second paragraph to the same section as a footnote. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 09:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This works for me, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree controversy sections are problematic. I don't care much about his degree, or lack thereof, either. But I do think that Gujarat 2002 is too sanitized in the lead. You could certainly remove the sentence about the previous chief minister and the earthquake, i.e. say: In 2001, he was appointed chief minister and elected to the state assembly soon after. I think you do need to say, very briefly of course, that critics have accused Modi of ordering his police to do nothing for three days while Hindu mobs were on a murderous rampage, that high-profile witnesses or whistleblowers were either murdered or given prison terms; and that both the US and the UK banned Modi from entering their countries for nearly a decade. Also, the number of dead, 1044, which is too precise, is obviously the official figure. It is probably better to say "over 1,000 in the official estimate and its double in unofficial ones." The rape and murder of Muslim women, including pregnant ones, was particularly horrific. It needs a nod in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In other words, the bit about the Supreme court finding not enough evidence to convict him needs a context, a counterpoint. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Once again, my primary concern is overloading the lead; I don't think we have much more room to play with, and would be opposed to adding more than a sentence. I do agree about the number being overprecise, and I'm happy to wordsmith anything that exists. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I've replaced the version before I edited the lead. As I say below, I did not realize it was a GA. I do think the lead goes way too easy on Modi and therefore grossly distorts the reality, but I've lost interest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I was shocked that you had written it. The lead papers over anything controversial about Modi with with distancing jargon, and in that it does a great disservice to readers. Contrast it with Britannica. Night and day difference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Britannica has the freedom to formulate its own narrative, a freedom we are not granted by policy. Besides, it has one strident paragraph, after which I'd argue it's equivocating a lot more than our article: it doesn't mention the failure of the Balakot strike, it doesn't mention the Covid death toll, it doesn't mention the Delhi riots at all. Please, let's talk specifics, and let's do so below so we're not having parallel conversations. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Public perception and image

Image

I'm not sure what to do with this yet; it should probably go in a "Personal life" section but to doesn't seem to be relevant to public perception or image.

A person named Badri Meena has been his cook since 2002. Modi used to maintain a close and publicised relationship with his centenarian mother, Hiraben.

In 2008, Modi published a Gujarati book titled Jyotipunj, which contains profiles of RSS leaders. The longest was of M. S. Golwalkar, under whose leadership the RSS expanded and whom Modi refers to as Pujniya Shri Guruji ("Guru worthy of worship"). According to The Economic Times, Modi's intention was to explain the workings of the RSS to his readers, and to reassure RSS members he remained ideologically aligned with them. Modi has written eight other books, mostly containing short stories for children.

References

Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I've re-added most of the above in two new sections, "Writing career" and "Private life". I don't think we need to know about his personal cook though. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree we do not need to know about his cook. I dislike the one-sentence section about private life. I do think it can be replaced in perception, because it's related to how he has been covered ("much-publicised"). Thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Awards and recognition

I thought the names of other award recipients is off-topic.

The Legion of Merit was awarded to Modi along with Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison and former Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe, the "original architects" of the QUAD.

References

Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978 and Vanamonde93: As I was brushing our senior cat, who is 16 and 1/2 years old, which is 80 in human age—therefore unable to groom herself and requiring this nightly ritual on my desk—I had this vague suspicion that you Baffle gab had mentioned GA somewhere on my talk page. In my careless first reading, I was puzzled by the remark, thinking someone had submitted it for a GA and you were the reviewer. My cat must have transmitted some wisdom for I just checked this page (up top) and realized it is already a good article, and of all people's it is Vanamonde's. So apologies to both. It is in safe hands, and I'm happy to restore the last edit in the lead before I opened my big mouth. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Fowler, no apologies are required; I first wrote this some years ago, when scholarly sources were less critical than they are today. I have tried to keep it up to date since, but I'm always happy to hear genuinely well-informed feedback. I supported most of your changes to the lead, and I've reinstated some of them, which I will tweak further momentarily. If you don't have the energy for this page, I quite understand. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Riots NPOV

I would also like to propose including the numbers of both Muslims and Hindus lost, instead of putting a special focus on Muslims in the mentions on Gujarat and Delhi riots. Every individual's life is unique and precious, and we should not slide the loss of some lives (i.e. Hindus) into obscurity. @Vanamonde93 Fayninja (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Balakot airstrike

Here is a better source of why this was a failure. @Vanamonde93 Fayninja (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

Please update 'Awards and Recognition' table and aectio. Today, he received Order of the Nile from Egyptian President.

References

45.64.208.11 (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Already done by Toadboy123 per [11] so closing it myself 45.64.208.11 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

References

RSS' history vs RSS' version of the history - of the Emergency

Earlier it was "RSS' version of the history of the Emergency", after the ce, it's "RSS's (sic) history of the Emergency". Do we want to restore the "version" for clarity and to reduce ambiguity? cc @Vanamonde93 — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the rulebook for Indian English, but in many Englishes, the preference these days is to add the s after the apostrophe for singular proper nouns that end in s (except for some traditional ones, e.g. Jesus (Good friend for Jesus' sake forbear ... (Shakespeare's epitaph) or even Jesus sake forbear.) This tradition may have begun because of two s letters already appearing.

Also, long classical Greek names, Sophocles' tragedies or Archimedes' principle. But for most others, an "s" would be added after the apostrophe, e.g. Thomas's engine or King Charles's coronation.

As RSS is not a classical name, I would add the s after the apostrophe (despite two s letters appearing in RSS). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

PS Apologies @DaxServer: I thought your question was only about the possessive, which it is not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries… I actually learnt something new :) — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · e · c) 15:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Family?

The private life section and elsewhere mention only his mother. Is he married? Does he have kids? Are his kids living in India? Or elsewhere? etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:2001:42:225:90FF:FE6B:D60 (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

I would like to add The BJP logo in political party like in the page of Amit Shah WikiEditor2.04(I) (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Xan747 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Riots declining?

Should this analysis of NCRB data on Modi's tenure be included in the article, a quick search on Google Scholar reveals a contrasting narrative. @Vanamonde93 Fayninja (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a significant decline. Capitals00 (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

I want to add a bit of information in the 'Private life' section. Snehashis Majumder (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Defence and Economy

@DaxServer: Can you tell how this content is not related to "economic policy" when the same section discusses "black money", "Make in India", and other topics? It is necessary to highlight the scandal that happened under his administration.

How this content is not related to "Defence policy" when the same section is discussing Operation Ganga? There should be details about Manipur violence because this conflict involves Indian armed forces. Capitals00 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Economic policy: How is Adani Group scandal relevant to Modi's admin? Was it the resultant to the government's economic policies? How did it effect/affect (don't know which) economic policies of Modi's admin? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Indian Army is involved in a ton of things. In this article, we discuss about the defence policy of Modi's admin not what Indian Army is involved in.

Operation Ganga was introduced first by @Souryadeep630 on 2 March 2022 under "Governance and other initiatives" and later moved to Defence policies by @Thenightaway on 3 May 2022 and further refined by others. As it stands, it doesn’t explain itself why it is a part of Modi admin's defence policy, but rather that it is an initiative took upon as originally introduced in the article. On this note, there are other evacuation missions and repatriations carried out in the last few years which need to be investigated on how RS view them - as part of Modi's governance initiatives or something else. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Thinking of a quicker solution, I think we should restore my additions to "Governance and other initiatives" while Operation Ganga can be also moved back to this section. Capitals00 (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Dax has already pointed out that your edit does not belong here on Narendra Modi's article. Describing it as a "scandal" without providing any evidence and relying solely on speculation constitutes original research. Additionally, a Supreme Court committee has already given a clean chit to the group through a preliminary decision and is awaiting a full report from SEBI to conclude the case. There is more to the stock collapse than what initially appears, especially considering it took place during a planned major investment drive. Engaging in short selling is unethical, and we should not place complete trust in the allegations made by companies under investigation; SEBI is also looking into the rout that wiped more than $100 billion off the conglomerate’s market value — specifically “suspicious trading” by six entities because of their “build-up of short positions” in Adani stocks before Hindenburg’s report. It is inappropriate to adopt an anti-capitalist stance until one can provide sustenance to as many individuals as these conglomerates are able to. Fayninja (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No clean chit was given.[12] Everyone saw the effect of Hindenburg Research and it hasn't been disputed until now. Capitals00 (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am unable to access the article in question, but I suggest relying on Bloomberg's account of the event: A committee appointed by India’s top court said that it doesn’t see any regulatory failure or signs of price manipulation in the rise and fall of the Adani Group’s stocks, in an interim report that’s a reprieve for the embattled conglomerate. The investor frenzy was mostly related to mounting debt concerns and long-term sustainability. I'd rather not delve into the nitty-gritty of the effect, as it is unrelated to our current discussion on Narendra Modi who holds no relevance to the operations of the mega conglomerate. Though you may discuss about increased ease of doing business on the article which his administration was directly involved in. Fayninja (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

i.e. Modi's role is limited to overseeing the regulatory agencies and not interfering with the autonomy of the court. Fayninja (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The source is accessible but you can also try this. The fact is that Adani is a close ally of Modi and it is impossible to think that without Modi anything like this would have happened. Then Modi's own silence over these issues is yet another concern.[13] This source also notes: "Prime Minister Narendra Modi is considered a close ally of Gautam Adani, whose business interests often align with the government’s growth goals." Capitals00 (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

His government has consistently refrained from commenting on court matters. As previously mentioned, his only recourse is to deploy central agencies to investigate any alleged offenses on behalf of the court, as seen in the Adani case.

Additionally, your edit appears to display bias. If it were up to me, I would enclose "scandal" and "biggest scam" in quotation marks and note that as of today, the Supreme court and SEBI have found no evidence against Adani. Fayninja (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"His government has consistently refrained from commenting on court matters." No and not even close to the reality when it concerns others. Modi himself charges others over scandals that ended up producing opposite results.[14]

Whether SEBI or Supreme Court found no evidence, it needs to be clearly stated by the source that such a development is related to Narendra Modi. I have used only those sources that are talking about relevance of Modi. Capitals00 (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Bias in the introduction

The introduction paragraphs are totally biased. Even a critique of Modi can see the agenda in it. No mention of even one positive development during Modi as PM. No mention of UPI, Jan Dhan Accounts, India becoming 5th largest economy, Surgical strikes, India's vaccine deployment and supply to other countries, reduction in terrorist attacks on civilians etc. Even Swachha Bharat Abhiyan is termed as 'high-profile sanitation campaign'.

Liberal agenda is understandable on such platforms but at least don't make it so obvious. I am not even talking about the biased sources used to write the articles, just the selectiveness of the facts in the introduction. Please review the introduction and make it balanced. Divi98 (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Surgical strikes - where, Balakot? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

He's referring to the 2016 Uri surgical strikes. Fayninja (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

They were even more dubious than 2019 Balakot strike. Capitals00 (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Dubious? So you think it was all a propoganda and 1.5 billion people got fooled? 103.86.19.90 (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2023 (2)

In the 'Private life' section, there is no information about Narendra Modi's wife Jashodaben Modi. I don't want to replace or delete any existing content available in the mentioned section, I just want to add some more information in it, specifically about his wife. So you can say that I want to turn X into XY. I haven't decided on how I would construct or word the information that I am going to add so I will not be able to give you a preview of that but it will be about when they got married and what is the status of their relationship currently. Source: </ref>Gowen, Annie (25 January 2015). "Abandoned as a child bride, wife of India's Modi hopes he calls". The Washington Post. Retrieved 3 November 2017.</ref>. Snehashis Majumder (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Propose here what you want to add. Capitals00 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

de facto divorced. No point mentioning details about a forced marriage. Fayninja (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

We already say in the lead that he abandoned his wife and admitted the fact of his marriage only when legally required to do so just before the 2014 elections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we need this "Private life" section? That he has a close relationship with his mom is kind of trivial.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

The numbers in the 'electoral history' section are incorrectly formatted. 1,13,589; 1,39,568; 1,20,470; 8,45,464; 2,75,336; 5,81,022; 2,09,238; 6,74,664 should be 113,589; 139,568; 120,470; 845,464; 275,336; 581,022; 209,238; 674,664, respectively. 25july23 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)